Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday September 23, 2009 @08:55AM
from the and-in-this-corner dept.

darien writes "Intel has officially entered the smartphone fight, giving a bullish demonstration at IDF of an Atom-based phone running the latest incarnation of its mobile Linux-based OS, dubbed Moblin for MIDs (mobile internet devices) v2.1. The system isn't aimed at current Atom CPUs, though — they're too power-hungry. 'One of the drivers of this initiative, and a key reason for the acquisition of Wind River, will be Intel's own app store, catering to ultra mobile devices based on the Atom chipset. The Intel Atom Developer Program will make use of Wind River's VxWorks product, which the company believes will help it achieve that developer grail of the 'write once and run on all devices' experience."

The Intel Atom Developer Program will make use of Wind River's VxWorks product, which the company believes will help it achieve that developer grail of the 'write once and run on all devices' experience.

I don't get it. VxWorks is an OS, right? How does that help with "write once, run anywhere"?

Seems to me that Android is doing more towards this, given that native Android apps target a VM, and thus aren't tied to ARM, x86, or anything else. I'm not saying Intel isn't doing this, I just don't see what that has to do with Moblin, VxWorks, or an App Store.

The other weird aspect of TFS, beyond your correct points, is that Moblin is Linux based(and a substantially more "orthodox" Linux than android) and was something Intel was doing well before they ate Wind River and acquired VxWorks.

Obviously, I'm sure that subsequent VxWorks releases will be carefully tuned to do their best VxWorking on Atom boards; but the connection between that and Moblin, or Intel's new enthusiasm for app stores, seems quite limited.

After having dealt with various incarnations of VxWorks over the past four years... Massive step backwards. VxWorks is lighter weight than Linux, but a massive leap backwards in terms of networking features and performance. (Remember, VxWorks was chosen over Linux for recent Linksys WRT54G units for cost reasons on the order of $2-5/unit and not overall performance- Units were cheaper to make, but in my experience far less reliable than the older Linux-based units with double the RAM/ROM.)

There's an entirely new network stack in VxWorks 6.6 or 6.7 (forget which). Hopefully Linksys et al won't be using the archaic 5.5.1 anymore... Wind River has been trying to get everyone to use 6.x for years. 5.5.1 is on life support, at this point.

I have no idea where people get their misinformation from, but that statement is completely false!

Android runs a standard Linux kernel, which is to say, Android is "orthodox" Linux. On Android, the differences are above the "Linux" level. They have their own framework known as Android. To say Android is unorthodox is to say KDE and Gnome are unorthodox Linux, which is of course crazy talk.

Most Linuxes are GNU/Linux, including such things as a standard libc. Android uses its own.
Meh ? There is a multitude of libc's out there, GLIBC is not the only one. Look up EGLIBC ( debian standard now ) , uClibc, standard on uClinux distros, dietlibc, newlib.
The fact that Android uses a BSD-derived Bionic C library for core userspace, does not make the system any less "Linux".
Functionally, a lot of linux systems dont ship X, and dont ship loads of other userspace libraries that you may think are "orthodox".
Lots of linux systems use busybox for almost all userspace functionality.

Most Linuxes are GNU/Linux, including such things as a standard libc. Android uses its own.

Once again, that's simply not true. Many different Linux distributions use different libraries and even variants.

Moblin also uses X, I think. Android doesn't.

So what! X is not Linux. X is not Unix. X is X. Such a statement pretty well validates you have no idea what you're talking about. X is not required to qualify as "Linux" or even "Linux-like". Under your definition, almost all system services, any application whi

However, if someone ships a Linux with a completely different GUI serving the same purpose X would have, especially for a platform where X was a credible option, it's not "orthodox".

I think you need to critically review your own statement. Its nonsensical. Android's GUI does not "serve the same purpose X would have". Period. Even more so, "especially for a platform where X was a credible option", is simply dumb as it doesn't apply in the least.

Notice I did not say X could not be used. I said its dumb to use it as such when better, faster, lighter technology exists, or can be created. X is good for many things and few even use it for its real strength.

However, we are talking about something drawing a GUI, and the usual ("orthodox"?) way of doing that is with X.

Don't even know where to start with that false position. So once again you're stuck with the notion that orthdox = desktop. Its not. Time and time aga

Most Linuxes are GNU/Linux, including such things as a standard libc. Android uses its own

Android also uses its own video driver architecture, its own window manager, its own desktop, and its own virtual machine. The statement that 'Android is "orthodox" Linux' isn't even true if you only consider "Linux" to be the kernel - Android uses its own kernel with a unique IPC mechanism. As Ars said: Android uses the Linux kernel, but it isn't really a Linux platform. It offers its own totally unique environment that is built on Google's custom Java runtime. There is no glide path for porting convention

Android also uses its own video driver architecture, its own window manager, its own desktop, and its own virtual machine. The statement that 'Android is "orthodox"

So what you're saying is, the majority of Linux installs are all unorthodox. Keep in mind the majority of Linux installs are server systems, not desktops. You metric seems to be, if its not a desktop system its unorthodox, which is beyond silly.

Also, you quote is misleading and inaccurate. By your definition, python is "unorthodox", as is Java, a

Orthodox: Adhering to whatever is traditional, customary or generally accepted.

I really don't see how Android fits that description, given the points already raised (especially the fact that the kernel is modified with a custom IPC mechanism). But until there is a scientifically testable description of "orthodox linux", the argument is over a personal interpretation of semantics.

Android is not a real Linux distro like people understand the term.
Then its a problem with people not understanding the term. Loads and loads of embedded linux distros dont include desktop stuff, are using different core C libraries, dont ship stuff like X, bash, dash and so on.
Look into distros like Montavista.

NO, not "loads and loads". Quite a few, but that does not make the term wrong. technically, Linux is just a kernel, as the term happens to be used, it tends to refer to the userspace as well.

Distros that go against the grain somewhat, with a different libc or without x or with busybox, are still very much considered linux. Android, is very much only a Linux kernel. It is not that they don't ship with X, it is that they have their own unique to android graphics server, their own libc not used anywhere else..

You are correct, but they could be, and IMO, they *should be*, because they both have stuff that works perfectly fine for the most part and have established organizational structure and name cred. Either of them could have taken a lead there and developed a business model around their efforts, like canonical is trying or Redhat, etc has established. And, they can still be "non profits". Non profits can make money besides from donations, and also can

Come on, we all know he wasn't referring to the kernel. Android is not a real Linux distro like people understand the term. KDE and Gnome are also not complete distros on their own.

I think you misunderstand. KDE and Gnome are to Linux as Android is to Linux. KDE, Gnome, and Android are not complete distros on their own, but all sit atop Linux. Just the same, technically, Android can run on something other than Linux just as KDE and Gnome do.

Because Green Hills is in the business of porting vxworks to any embedded system on the market. Green Hills provides the cross compilers. In fact, you probably can't even begin to think of introducing a new embedded cpu without talking with green hills to coordinate a port. It's kind of hard to shoot too many holes in a strategy that revolves around vxworks.

I believe the Intel's focus for WindRiver is their software tools. Note that WindRiver already markets BSP kits for Linux for OEMs. It includes debuggers, emulators, and build systems. With WindRiver's tools and Intel's hardware they can have a very compelling Moblin Linux solution for potential hardware vendors.
Sean

if im not mistaken, Wind River had two os's... VxWorks (Their original OS and had features like RTOS) and they also had something linuxy that they also had a vxworks brand on it..

I could be wrong though.

VxWorks was certianly nothing like linux though, so how you combine something destined for vxworks and linux together is beyond me... perhaps its jsut a badly worded statement or theres a back story here thats gone missing... maybe they're going to OSS VxWorks and roll up some of its components to linux? Or

erm.. Microsoft. They're the only ones with a second-rate attitude to mobile devices, although I heard than WinMo 7 will come out (eventually) and have support for social networking!

I use the mobile device marketplace as a way to explain to managers that Linux is the next big thing - they already know mobile is the big marketplace (gartner et al told them so) but they don't realise that Intel with Moblin, Nokia with Maemo, Palm with webOS, and Google with Android are all Linux OSs.

Ok, the articles linked to by the summary are already slashdotted, and, even by slashdot standards (or lack), the/. article summary is highly confusing. . . Is Intel planning to use Moblin, VxWorks, or both? I mean, the article non-quoted text talks about Moblin, but the quote talks about VxWorks, so which is it?

Every time I think Intel has got it all figured out they pull something like this to remind me that they don't really understand. They're like the 7 year old kid that steals his parents car and drives it 40 miles down the road to buy ice cream, and then tries to pay with lego blocks and a wilted Yugi-oh card. Genius, but misguided genius. They're the RainMan of IT.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. The main selling point seems to be that it can run regular Linux apps. Which of course you would not want to do in the first place in devices with such a constrained screen size and different input methods. You are better off writing apps for that device instead. They should have just tried to improve Android instead.

Not true, I get on the command line of my iPhone all the time. There's nothing like being able to SSH into a machine from anywhere you've got reception. Its got nice little touch gestures for different command short cuts and everything.

Not true, I get on the command line of my iPhone all the time. There's nothing like being able to SSH into a machine from anywhere you've got reception. Its got nice little touch gestures for different command short cuts and everything.

I once tried to use vi using accelerometer gestures. Now all my colleagues think i'm epileptic.

There are more apps available for Linux than just Open Office and The Gimp. Tens of thousands more. Maybe you don't use them all, but some of us use ones that would work just fine on a mobile phone platform (Apache, for one).

A Linux Phone with a wireless data link, usb servo controller and a webcam for example makes an interesting onboard avionics computer for an RPV - just to spew a quick one off the top of my head.

Which parts of Android are closed source? Closed hardware is unfortunately a feature of this market. The fact that cellphone operators love lock-in does not help either. Even if you try to get a laptop you often get a lot of lock-in.

> Stupid, stupid, stupid. The main selling point seems to be that it can run regular Linux apps. Which of course you would not want to do in the first place in devices with such a constrained screen size and different input methods.

But you could use OPIE [wikipedia.org] or GPE [wikipedia.org] for example.

"apt-get install" is fine if you like the typer box terminal thingie. It's totally retro, and I respect that. Me, I just like to click the apt-url [ubuntu.com] thingie. Some nice person built us a search engine [apturl.net] so if you only know you want CAD or whatever, it will find you some without you know the package name. Then you click the "install it now" button and it installs. Wipe hands on pants.

I don't know why I got moderated troll when both replies basically confirmed what I wrote. It's good to have apt-whatever to install any linux app under the sun, but is there a separate distribution channel for mobile-optimized apps ? That was the essence of the question.

Dude. You're in Antarctica and it's September. You've got bigger problems than Slashdot moderation. Are you receiving resupply yet? Mobile Internet service must really suck down there. What kind of bandwidth do you get? It may interest you to know that it only gets 11C colder on Mars than it does there.

Really, don't let it get to you. The moderation here is pretty spotty - it works in the general case, not the specific. But it's the best moderation system I've seen yet because it's self-policing (lo

Are you receiving resupply yet? Mobile Internet service must really suck down there. What kind of bandwidth do you get? It may interest you to know that it only gets 11C colder on Mars than it does there.

Supplies won't arrive before november. No mobile, although I think they should set up a tower, if only for local GSM use. Bandwidth was limited (in 2005 but I don't think it's changed) to two connections a day for email. Irridium throuput was abysmal. Avg temp at Dome C is actually the same than on Mars (-53C).

Moderation annoys me now and then, but if a moderation is really abusive you can just follow up with another post that's topical and interesting, and mention by-the-way that the parent was abusively modded and another moderator will fix it.

Apparently it works !

Awesome pics on your website [gdargaud.net] by the way. I've got that bookmarked now. Probably beat up your webserver with wget this weekend building a local mirror.

Moblin isn't worth a shit on the netbooks it's supposed to run on, either (CRASH!) It's amazing how unreliable Intel has managed to make Linux on their own hardware. VxWorks has just one purpose, minimum overhead in a RTOS. Out of the box it does jack shit and probably won't work anyway. This is a dumb idea from dumb people.

well it would be nice if you could run moblin in a vm. Nice too, if someone would realise that the weekly build is a bit overdue its not august anymore. The vmware image seems to have disappeared all links point to a page which has a live edition. which doesn't run in a vm, (apparently moblins gui cant run in a vm thanks for pointing it out on the download page , whoops you didn't).

First bug with moblin gettin it up and running on the platform its intended for.

It's like the 80s and the begining of windows all over again but for mobile devices. The question is what will be the OS that can use the most software. Right now there are: IPhone OS which is very closed. Windows mobile also very closed and not sexy. Android which is open and has lots of backing by lot's of different builders. Many other smaller options. Moblin look very open too but.. when it will show up, Android should already available from every cellular providers.

What is funny in that mobile war is the position of Apple. Pretty much like when the first Mac came by at the begining of the 80s. They have a great product. But they are too closed. So it's going to be everybody against them. They can't win. Dell, HTC, Lenovo, Motorola, Philips, Samsung, Sony Ericson (on the open side this time) , and many others already have android phones.

I predict that soon when you'll want to build a mobile application, it will have to run on Android first. That way it will be available to everybody. The rest will be second thought. Just like the market for computer right OS now with windows. But this time the winner will be the open platform because it's been early in the market and the manufacturer will simply find it easier then going for windows mobile.

It's closed because the handset builders have to buy it and enter in a contract with Microsoft to offer it. For a programmer a good API will never be like having access to the source code. I know because I lived throught both.

Right now there are: IPhone OS which is very closed. Windows mobile also very closed and not sexy. Android which is open and has lots of backing by lot's of different builders. Many other smaller options. Moblin look very open too but.. when it will show up, Android should already available from every cellular providers.

You list Apple, and everyone smaller than them. What about Blackberry? Nokia? All the billions of Java phones out there?

I don't disagree with you, but note a difference with the 80s computing analogy is that aside from the ones trying to push an operating system, there are also loads of less expensive (and yes, not as good, but you get what you pay for, and still fulfil most people's needs), that make up the vast majority of the market.

Of course, there were a lot of computer makes around in the 80s, but the other difference is that these phones today do support a common standard, mainly thanks to Java, and also due to functionality being offered on websites). It's not perfect, but it's way better than the bad old days of computing where you needed a different version for every make and model on the market. Now a single application runs on pretty much any phone.

Except then along comes the Iphone, and changes that by specificially not allowing Java. So now we have to return to the days where special "For Your Iphone" applications are needed, to do what the rest of us were doing for years before. It's great marketing for Apple though, because people see these "Posted using XXX for Iphone" everywhere - all the people using ordinary phones are using open standards (either a Java app, or via the website itself), and thus don't get the free advertising spam for that make of phone.

What is funny in that mobile war is the position of Apple. Pretty much like when the first Mac came by at the begining of the 80s. They have a great product. But they are too closed. So it's going to be everybody against them. They can't win. Dell, HTC, Lenovo, Motorola, Philips, Samsung, Sony Ericson (on the open side this time) , and many others already have android phones.

I predict that soon when you'll want to build a mobile application, it will have to run on Android first.

I agree, and I hope so. I loved the Amiga back in the day, but looking back, it seems obvious that from a hardware point of view, the PC would be the winner, ever since it became a standard for business use in the early 80s. It was just a case of what OS it ran.

One problem however is that there is yet to be an open standard for mobile hardware. In some sense, there doesn't need to be, if systems like Java or Android are used. But I still have a worry Apple may be able to gain a monopoly on the hardware, because there's no open standard for potential new companies to use for mobile hardware.

The PC won because when every company said "Hey, let's get into making computers", most of them took the easy option and built PCs. With phones, they're left struggling to come up with their own hardware, or more likely, not bother at all.

It wasn't some sort of master win by the IBM PC that doomed Apple to obscurity. IIRC, IBM lost some sort of lawsuit which opened up their platform. They fought it tooth and nail, IBM would have been quite happy to have a walled garden architecture just like Apple. Heck, we're still using PCs today!

I agree with your points for the most part... however, android has more in common with the PC then any other platform... plus, back in those days there were no FOSS alternatives (not real ones anyways)...

The reason i say that is similar to how people got into making PC - an open standard. Alot of phone makers would love one that allows them to make a phone that is fairly industry-wide compatible and the old real option at this point is windows.

Of course, there were a lot of computer makes around in the 80s, but the other difference is that these phones today do support a common standard, mainly thanks to Java, and also due to functionality being offered on websites). It's not perfect, but it's way better than the bad old days of computing where you needed a different version for every make and model on the market. Now a single application runs on pretty much any phone.

What universe do you live in? You've obviously never been a mobile developer if you think this even remotely resembles reality. Having been a mobile developer for over 2 years, I can tell you that Java has done absolutely nothing to solve device fragmentation. The language doesn't matter; it's the libraries, of course.

Every carrier has a hundred devices, and every single device has a different bug in its implementation of MIDP. With the strict size requirements for J2ME, for all but the simplest applicat

I think Apple can win. The iPhone may be closed but so far being closed and limited are normal for phones and people keep buying them anyway. Also, they have a strong base of developers. Furthermore, the phone is more appealing than its competition out of the box with no additional applications installed.

Assuming the programs are written in Java with a few custom Java include files, I think the downfall of Android will be the ease of viewing the source code of Java, and the lack of a way to profit from buil

The question is what will be the OS that can use the most software. Right now there are: IPhone OS which is very closed. Windows mobile also very closed and not sexy. Android which is open and has lots of backing by lot's of different builders. Many other smaller options. Moblin look very open too but.. when it will show up, Android should already available from every cellular providers.

Is this a joke? By far, Nokia is the largest provider of smartphones in the World (smartphones, not just regular cell phones).

Right now, Nokia and Windows Mobile are the two biggest paltforms "that can use the most software". Hands-down, they allow you to do the most stuff, and they give you the most flexibility than either the iPhone or Android. For instance, the iPhone doesn't allow you to run more than one app at a time (buggy Backgrounder utility excepted). I, on the other hand, routinely run at least f

I'd rather buy Moblin than Android on a mobile device. Android replaces basically every part of what we usually call "Linux", except for the kernel (which of course actually *is* Linux). Moblin has a heavily custom desktop environment but other than that it seems like a reasonably "normal" distribution. If I were to do any hacking on the device I'd bought, I'd like it to be a familiar environment. If I'm downloading others' apps I'd feel more confident in getting a good range of apps if they can code in a familiar environment.

Android's good because it's an open platform. I can easily believe that for really resource-constrained apps it's better than Moblin. But on anything that can handle it, I'd rather have a "real" distro than Android. The diversity of having multiple mobile platforms is a good thing; I just personally would rather be able to run a familiar Unix-like environment on all my devices, even if they use a custom front-end to fit the form factor. Improvements to infrastructure (kernel, X.org, shell, apps, whatever) required for a small device are something that I'd like to see integrated upstream so that everyone benefits.

I'd rather buy Moblin than Android on a mobile device. Android replaces basically every part of what we usually call "Linux", except for the kernel (which of course actually *is* Linux). Moblin has a heavily custom desktop environment but other than that it seems like a reasonably "normal" distribution

I don't think I'd call that an advantage. Linux-the-normal-distribution has a lot of aspects that aren't well-suited to a small-screen mobile device, and keeping those aspects around results in a worst-of-both-worlds compromise. Think about Windows Mobile (especially pre-2003): the interface carry-overs from Windows proper are the chief reason it's an also-ran on PDAs and phones, and it's only as those features disappear (and the platform diverges further from the desktop) that it's getting any traction at all. That many WM apps pay only lip-service to the platform and obey desktop conventions makes matters worse; keeping the desktop's UI encourages some pretty bad behaviour on the part of many developers.

There's no real point to extending the traditional Linux desktop to a phone for the same reason: there's nothing worthwhile to carry over. There's enough of this problem on the Linux desktop, which suffers from the platform's focus on servers and technical users. Google was right to junk as much as they can in favour of a user interface that's built for a mobile device. If they've made a mistake anywhere, it's that they've allowed the handset makers too much control over the interface, weakening the Android brand and hamstringing the phone with glitchy, tacked-on interface garbage that doesn't integrate well with the underlying OS (have you seen HTC TouchFlo on Windows Mobile? It's like lipstick on a pig).

I'm not saying that Moblin will be Windows CE awful, but I can't see it being iPhone or even Android-good if it's carrying over just about any aspect of the Linux GUI, and I can't see ports of desktop Linux apps being anything more than oft-frustrating.

I probably don't really want an existing DE on my mobile phone (for instance), I agree with you on that. But there's a lot of space between Moblin's approach (which already uses a custom DE that's specialised for netbook-class devices) and Android's approach (which replaces almost everything in the stack, as well as the UI). I'd also like for the primary supported method of writing applications to not be a strange combination of Java and a custom bytecode interpreter / JIT - that's the way Android has done it although I had the impression they were moving to support native applications.

If Moblin rewrites the entire user interface and doesn't default to using any "normal" Linux apps, it will still be *way* closer to "normal" Linux than Android is. Android doesn't use glibc, AFAIK - it doesn't even use X.org for display. Moblin on a phone would "merely" have an unfamiliar interface and apps, where Android is basically unfamiliar to me in every way - it's a significantly larger change than just the UI level.

I'm not a normal case, I suppose, in that I like to hack about with devices. However, it seems to me that the closer-to-vanilla environment provided by Moblin is going to be easier to get existing OSS developers working on and I'd like to benefit from their work too.

I think the competition between Android and Moblin will be good, in that it will ensure that neither camp sits back on its laurels. Just in the near term, I hope the potential market threat Moblin represents will shake Google into implementing Bluetooth file sharing, right now a prominent shortcoming in Android.

Think about Windows Mobile (especially pre-2003): the interface carry-overs from Windows proper are the chief reason it's an also-ran on PDAs and phones,

The differences between Android and conventional Linux-based OSes run quite a bit deeper than the UI--Android is a very different architecture altogether. It's like saying MacOS X is BSD UNIX--IT ISN'T. It shares a lot of common elements, it is somewhat compatible but architecturally it is VASTLY DIFFERENT, far more than skin-deep-different. Therefore, one could say that those chief reasons for WinMo's failures could be addressed with a far more "conventional" Linux-based OS distribution. That is where

If Intel is helping with tuning linux to mobile hardware, how will that affect other mobile linux OS's? Is Intel going to try to have their own distro or just working on improving the hardware/software interaction of its mobile chipsets?

Last June I submitted this story [slashdot.org] on joint endeavors between Intel and Nokia in the mobile space.

"The partnership will center around several open-source mobile Linux software projects, including the Moblin platform for Atom-based processors and the Maemo operating system developed by Nokia. Intel will also acquire a licence from Nokia that is used in modem chips to connect to third generation cellular networks."

the moblin site advertises it for netbooks and "netttops". netbooks have laptop-like batteries which are orders of magnitude more powerful than those in true mobile devices. nettops are "very small form factor , inexpensive, low-wattage desktop computers" (from wikipedia).

even on android which puts a lot of design into getting the most out of your battery, you can easily shoot yourself in the foot by running the simplest process continuously. people don't understand how tiny and weak mob

MID may stand for "mobile internet device", but is understood to be a different and larger form factor (4"+ screens) than smartphones. Something being competitive for a MID, isn't necessarily so for a smartphone.

In fact, Intel and Nokia were palling around just the other day (http://www.h-online.com/open/What-does-the-Intel-Nokia-mobile-Internet-deal-mean-for-open-source--/features/113612), talking about splitting the market - Moblin for MID, Maemo for smartphones. Of course, now they're muddying the waters